You guys are saying since Dreamworks has success with cgi flicks that its ok to make as many as they want, but thats my problem, Pixar does very successful with there cgi flicks and you dont see them milking the genre, well just wait a couple years when everyone is gonna be tired of CGI, because there not gonna be as great as they once were, except Pixar will keep releasing quality material.

Okay, then that's why it doesn't look as good on a visual scale compared to Antz and the Shrek films. I just thought PDI did all of DreamWorks' CGI films. Nevermind then. ;)

And most people don't agree with me because most people in this country don't account for taste (and it saddens me that Shrek 2 made more than any PIXAR film). I'm sorry, but I'm one of those people that'll take a good story over of a long 90-minute fart joke.

As I said before, PDI could easily go head-to-head with PIXAR if they had a good script on their hands. They showed a lot of great promise with Antz which saddens me even more that the Shrek films were nowhere on par with that first film of theirs. Story comes first in my book, the great looking visuals are just gravy.

But now if PDI and PIXAR put their films in IMAX... ;)

I just don't see the complaint. Dreamworks is turning out more animated pictures. I think that's a good thing. Granted, PDI seems to be better than the group who made Shark's Tale, but truth be told, whether you like em or not, many many people do love them and that should be enough. Shrek is enormous, and that popularity is enough to justify it's existent.

What I'm reading here is that I suppose the detractors don't like the films dreamworks makes. Many do, and the box office definately supports that.

PDI has made 4 CG films since 1998, including Madagascar. Pixar has made 5. Dreamworks has also released Shark Tale, which puts their tally at 5. Oh my God! 5 movies, when Pixar has only done...wait...5 also? How dare they "milk" the genre! Yes, three of them are opening within a year, but I really can't see how 3 freakin films equals milking the genre. Jerry Bruckheimer turns out practically the same number of action films in a single year, which doesn't even take into consideration the myriad of other action flicks out there.

I guess I don't know why the existence of these films would bother anyone. In general, they're of much better quality than your average film, they make boatloads of money and seem to be quite popular. Why exactly should they stop making them?

There not doing Robots there doing Madagascar, which from the trailer seems very mediocre.

Don't worry about anyone who doesn't know how to use the word "they're" :)

Oh im sorry I didnt know this was grammar school, i'll remember next time, lame.

Comparing Dreamworks to Pixar isn't fair though. Dreamworks is a studio, Pixar is a company. PDI is more comparable to Pixar. Disney is more comparable to Dreamworks. And since hand-drawn animation is on the outs, pretty much any animation from here on in is CGI. So labelling CGI movies as a genre is misleading. It's animation that's the genre. And like all genres, animated movies have its hits and misses.

Saying bad CGI movies will hurt the genre is like saying making Tomb Raider 2 or the Mummy Returns will hurt the action/adventure genre. No matter what the genre, there are good and bad films. So what? Making one bad film in a genre means jack. I don't think people are saying to themselves, yeah that last action movie I saw sucked so I won't see the next one even though it's from a different studio, with a different story, and different actors. And if people do say such things, well then they are stupid.

Remember, this is the internet, and the way you type, is the way people see you. If you type like a child, people are going to think you are one. No one will take you seriously.

But don't sweat it man, as long as there's someone else who has lesser writing skills than myself, it'll make me look smarter. I'm on the low end here :D :(

So I should like say Gigli just because the people who worked on it put in hard work to make it? Lame lame lame.

Get off my dick.

Also this is a discussion board and people have opinions, if you dont like my opinion you can go cry me a river.

You seriously don't think so? Because this thread has just shown that Shark's Tale was confused as a PDI effort simply because it was Dreamworks, and most articles I read about Shrek mention Dreamworks but marginalize PDI, if they're mentioned at all.


If you go back and look at the posters for Pixar's films, only Toy Story 2 features any actor's names, and that probably had more to do with contract negotiations with the actors to return. Pixar got Hanks and Allen at bargain prices for Toy Story 1, because it was before either of them were really name actors. Also, look at the trailers. Again, with the exception of Toy Story 2, the actors aren't named in them, even Crystal and Goodman. Check out the trailers(and posters) yourself at http://www.pixar.com/

The showcasing of actors just seems like a diversion. If Shark Tale wanted a shark that sounded like Squiggy, why didn't they hire Squiggy instead of Jack Black doing a Squiggy impression? It's the same problem 2D animation had in its last years, with Dreamworks and Disney both hiring name actors for voicework and wondering why the box-office didn't explode.

Here's an article about what I mean:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6012750/
It looks like a style that'd work better as hand-drawn animation. I understand going stylistic, The Incredibles does that with its humans. It's just that The Incredibles doesn't look like it was done using 4 year old software on a TV budget. Some of those animals don't have fur, they have texture maps.

I guess to me it just looks like a budgetary thing, where Dreamworks isn't willing to invest the money to let the CGI look better. And if they're not willing to invest the money, are they willing to put the time and effort into other parts of the film, like story?

Actually, caliing animation a genre is still misleading. It's not a genre, it's a medium. Genre refers to the type of story a film is trying to tell (comedy, mystery, thriller). You could theoretically tell any type of genre film in the animated medium.
The difference is that CGI animated films is such a relatively new medium that there have been only a handful of films released in the form so far, with only maybe one or two being crap, at least as far as popular opinion is concerned. So one or tow bad films in the medium at this point could actually majorly affect the general opinion of the medium as a whole at this point. Of course, I think the general opinion of CGI films is overinflated at this point anyway, and a bad films in any medium or genre is inevitable, so it's silly to blame Dreamworks for bringing expectations for CGI back down to earth, even if that is what they end up doing.

Shrek 2 cost $80 million and had great visuals.
Shark Tale cost $75 million and has piss-poor visuals.

But while Shrek 2 only had three big name actors (Myers, Diaz, and Murphy); Shark Tale has what, six name actors?

Outside of Monsters, Inc. and the Toy Story flicks. PIXAR doesn't go with all big name actors. If you look at the upocming The Incredibles, who are the name actors in that? Samuel L. Jackson? Jason Lee? Holly Hunter? :)

You should re-think this argument. It's an old one, and one that doesn't have much support outside of the artistic world. It basically tries to descredit everyone who hasn't made a creative work themselves. So basically nearly every critic. And pretty much the entire audience that laughed at the work you've created.

You're creating work for an audience. So unless you don't care what your audience thinks, then Mr. Blonde's opinion, as one of the audience, is valid.

Wait, what? Unless the deal was inked a decade before the film was released, I don't know what you're talking about.

Toy Story was released two years after Philadelphia. Presuming Hanks was signed before he won the Oscar for Philadelphia, he was still already a big name. I mean, he was nominated for an Oscar for Big in 1988.

And Tim Allen was a bigger name when that movie came out than he is now, because he's done nothing of consequence since Home Improvement. So I don't really see how they weren't big names.

And I think Matthew Chmiel is spot-on with his assessment of Pixar vs. most other animated features. Antz had an amazing script and looked fantastic. Shrek and Shrek 2 only looked fantastic, the scripts were dated by the time of release, and 90% of the jokes were never funny, period. It bothers me how much success these films have achieved without one tenth of the story quality or humor of even the weakest Pixar film.

Who casts Mike Meyers as the straight man, anyway?

The problem in that example is the contract that pixar has with disney. I'm sure they would be cranking them out just as much as Dreamworks seems to if it was on it's own and it didn't have a specific contract with disney.

Either way, saying people will get tired of CGI is like saying people will grow tired of talkie pictures and that strange color stuff!

"The Phantom Menace," "Attack of the Clones," "The Matrix Reloaded," "Armageddon" and "The Grinch" all made good money, but that doesn't make them good movies.

I'd like to say that The Matrix Reloaded is certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.

Yeah, but that was before they saw Matrix Revolutions. :o

Anyhow, those are all opinions on if those films were good. I think the main purpose is that if something makes money, regardless of if it is good or bad. It is considered a success.

Is it me or did somebody just pack up all his posts and leave?

Hanks was signed before Philadelphia. So while he was famous and successful, he wasn't the two-time Oscar winner he was when the film was released. As for Tim Allen, presuming he signed on about the same time, he would've only been in season 2 or 3 of Home Improvement. He also had a considerable box-office success with The Santa Clause before the release of Toy Story. So considering their relative increase in fame, Pixar got them at bargain prices.

Also, as the article I linked to noted, Pixar picks actors that they feel would make good voices for the characters, instead of hiring what they feel are name stars and trying to make them fit. Pixar did an early test of Woody using a line of Hank's from Turner and Hooch. And Tim Allen is doing an actual voice for Buzz, not just saying his lines.

The contract with Disney is quantity specific though, not time specific. If Pixar had cranked out 5 films in 3 years, they would've been out of their contract with Disney that much quicker. Pixar has never rushed their films though. They halted Toy Story 2 mid production when they decided the story wasn't good enough.

I for one am saddened by this development. I for one was excited by the opportunity to talk to someone on the inside about these films, and while I was argumentative, I really wanted to learn the opinions of one who actually works at the company, and on the films in question. I hope I wasn't too harsh.

On the other hand, jeffkjoe was very defensive from the start, and near hostile by the end. Perhaps he was too close to the works in question to be able to reasonably tolerate outside opinions.

He emailed me once about a thread I started over the hypocrisy of Shrek 2, and how the first film rails on Disney and its marketing machine, yet Shrek 2 products were seemingly everywhere. I can't find the thread, but I thought it was funny that someone took the time out to actually email me directly over such a thing.

A 49 million opening for SHARK TALE.

Nothing is wrong with Dreamworks.